If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sure they can, but they would be violating an oath to support their marriage.

Do you think there are people who get married to make a more perfect union, who don't take the "until death do us part" oath, who would think it "common sense" that if they grew apart, or if their union was no longer beneficial to both, would find it acceptable to simply part ways?

Do you think there are people who get married to make a more perfect union, who don't take the "until death do us part" oath, who would think it "common sense" that if they grew apart, or if their union was no longer beneficial to both, would find it acceptable to simply part ways?

Sure, but again, they would be violating an oath to support their marriage.

Sure, but again, they would be violating an oath to support their marriage.

They would? So my wife and I have that exact arrangement which is why we didn't say until death do us part. We realize that if either of us grow beyond the other, or if one of us devolves, and it affects the quality of our union, we reserve the right to leave. It's not a violation of an oath to support marriage, it's our right as individuals who don't want to be in a $#@!ty or abusive relationship. We wouldn't see this as violating an oath to support marriage, because we didn't take the "death do us part" portion. That same portion is also not in the Constitution.

Tantric, should I draw pictures for you with this analogy so you can keep up?

They would? So my wife and I have that exact arrangement which is why we didn't say until death do us part. We realize that if either of us grow beyond the other, or if one of us devolves, and it affects the quality of our union, we reserve the right to leave. It's not a violation of an oath to support marriage, it's our right as individuals who don't want to be in a $#@!ty or abusive relationship. We wouldn't see this as violating an oath to support marriage, because we didn't take the "death do us part" portion. That same portion is also not in the Constitution.

Tantric, should I draw pictures for you with this analogy so you can keep up?

So you think terminating a union is consistent with supporting that union? If that's honestly the case, which I truly can't fathom anyone could possible believe, then we are operating in completely different realities and discussing this further is entirely pointless.

So you think terminating a union is consistent with supporting that union? If that's honestly the case, which I truly can't fathom anyone could possible believe, then we are operating in completely different realities and discussing this further is entirely pointless.

Yes, I do think that is supporting the union. It's like telling the federal government, "Hey, I want this to work I really do, and there are things about you I really love - but if you keep coming home drunk and beating me, this union isn't going to work anymore - you've changed. And we never said that we were locked into this relationship. So please stop hitting me so that we can improve our union, or I'm gone."

Perhaps we are operating in two completely different realities. Like you, I can't fathom how you can believe otherwise so it may be pointless to continue.

Do you think there are people who get married to make a more perfect union, who don't take the "until death do us part" oath, who would think it "common sense" that if they grew apart, or if their union was no longer beneficial to both, would find it acceptable to simply part ways?

Yes, I do think that is supporting the union. It's like telling the federal government, "Hey, I want this to work I really do, and there are things about you I really love - but if you keep coming home drunk and beating me, this union isn't going to work anymore - you've changed. And we never said that we were locked into this relationship. So please stop hitting me so that we can improve our union, or I'm gone."

"'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."

"'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."

Yes. A wife having the option of leaving a marriage and using that to tell the husband to stop beating her, or a state telling the federal government that they are overstepping their Constitutional bounds and that if they don't stop they will leave, is just like bombing a town to save a town. Maybe you do have a handle on these analogies after all?

Yes. A wife having the option of leaving a marriage and using that to tell the husband to stop beating her, or a state telling the federal government that they are overstepping their Constitutional bounds and that if they don't stop they will leave, is just like bombing a town to save a town. Maybe you do have a handle on these analogies after all?

Yes, the federal government telling the states they couldn't allow some of their citizens to own other citizens as slaves was clearly overstepping their bounds.

I suppose you think Brown v. Board of Education is another example of the federal government overstepping its bounds.

Yes. A wife having the option of leaving a marriage and using that to tell the husband to stop beating her, or a state telling the federal government that they are overstepping their Constitutional bounds and that if they don't stop they will leave, is just like bombing a town to save a town. Maybe you do have a handle on these analogies after all?

No, I only posted it because I think we finally figured out you are the unnamed major who made that statement.

Yes, the federal government telling the states they couldn't allow some of their citizens to own other citizens as slaves was clearly overstepping their bounds.

I suppose you think Brown v. Board of Education is another example of the federal government overstepping its bounds.

I understand you are feeling the sting of losing your argument, but please don't try to paint me as a racist. As I've made clear, slavery was wrong and a huge blemish on America since our founding. But your attempts to hit me with the PC stick don't change the law regarding secession.

I understand you are feeling the sting of losing your argument, but please don't try to paint me as a racist. As I've made clear, slavery was wrong and a huge blemish on America since our founding. But your attempts to hit me with the PC stick don't change the law regarding secession.

What did I lose? You think you know how the founding fathers stood on secession more than James Madison. I didn't lose $#@!, you just pretended to establish yourself as an all-knowing authority on something you don't understand.

What did I lose? You think you know how the founding fathers stood on secession more than James Madison. I didn't lose $#@!, you just pretended to establish yourself as an all-knowing authority on something you don't understand.

Yes, perhaps you are right that Madison's view of secession was what the founders intended, and they just happened to leave that fairly important point out ("oh, by the way, once you sign this you can't change your mind, here's the pen," and perhaps the tenth amendment was ratified saying that any power not provided to the federal government, or denied to the states, was held by the States/people by those who forgot that they had left out secession. Maybe it's possible that joining a group meant never being able to leave that group, despite that not being in the terms of joining, and regardless of the fact that few would join such a group (most are nervous about joining a HOA). But maybe you're right that James Madison nailed the intentions, and just forgot to put that part into law.

Then again, Madison was just one dude who signed the Constitution. Other signers likely had different views. Perhaps some of those views were informed by the Declaration of Independence which states in part:

"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,..."

After all, we are the "United States" - a group of separate State that have chosen to unite. De Toqueville, just one outside observer, observed of the United States:

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."

Of course the dude might have totally been wrong. He was French after all. Either way, we can probably find all kinds of views from that time period, from both founder and outside observer, to suggest opinions one way or another. It was a debate at the time, just as it is now - they were not unanimous in their opinions. But in the end, they agreed and compromised, and secession was not written into the Constitution, so it is a power that falls to the States via the Tenth Amendment. I don't need to know how the founding fathers stood on anything, all I need to know is what the Constitution says and what it does not say.

Yes, perhaps you are right that Madison's view of secession was what the founders intended, and they just happened to leave that fairly important point out ("oh, by the way, once you sign this you can't change your mind, here's the pen," and perhaps the tenth amendment was ratified saying that any power not provided to the federal government, or denied to the states, was held by the States/people by those who forgot that they had left out secession. Maybe it's possible that joining a group meant never being able to leave that group, despite that not being in the terms of joining, and regardless of the fact that few would join such a group (most are nervous about joining a HOA). But maybe you're right that James Madison nailed the intentions, and just forgot to put that part into law.

Then again, Madison was just one dude who signed the Constitution. Other signers likely had different views. Perhaps some of those views were informed by the Declaration of Independence which states in part:

"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,..."

After all, we are the "United States" - a group of separate State that have chosen to unite. De Toqueville, just one outside observer, observed of the United States:

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."

Of course the dude might have totally been wrong. He was French after all. Either way, we can probably find all kinds of views from that time period, from both founder and outside observer, to suggest opinions one way or another. It was a debate at the time, just as it is now - they were not unanimous in their opinions. But in the end, they agreed and compromised, and secession was not written into the Constitution, so it is a power that falls to the States via the Tenth Amendment. I don't need to know how the founding fathers stood on anything, all I need to know is what the Constitution says and what it does not say.

Secession is up to each State. That's just the way it is.

It's like 5-1 in google articles that say secession wasn't illegal. That doesn't make it so. But all the arguments for the most part have echoed what's been said here, in more intelligently worded arguments for the most part.

So let's look at this. The founders who overthrew an all intrusive and powerful monarchy to establish their own govt. decided that those states joining should never be able to leave that new govt if it became oppressive itself ?? Is this really the argument being made ?

A group of men suspicious of one seat of govt having too much power cede all their power to an all powerful central govt ? Sorry just not buying it.

Gonna talk to my buddy tomorrow over a cigar and a good bourbon or two. He was a supreme court clerk and White House counsel for W. I'm pretty sure he'll have an unbiased and enlightening read on this issue.

Gonna talk to my buddy tomorrow over a cigar and a good bourbon or two. He was a supreme court clerk and White House counsel for W. I'm pretty sure he'll have an unbiased and enlightening read on this issue.

Nothing is unbiased, but there is no doubt your buddy is extremely intelligent. Good source to have for your consideration. I hope you post the results of the conversation.

Nothing is unbiased, but there is no doubt your buddy is extremely intelligent. Good source to have for your consideration. I hope you post the results of the conversation.

Well unbiased with regard to this thread. My question will simply be, was seccesion legal or illegal in 1860 ? And, What do you know about opinions from Constitutional scholars on the topic ? He gives pretty good man on the street understandable answers to most of the legal stuff I ask him. He's a big history Buff as well, so I know he's thought and or discussed this before.

The south didn't secede over some idealistic ideological argument over separation of powers, they seceded to preserve slavery.

The Civil War would've been fought if no African had ever seen North America. The conflict over who wore the daddy pants had to be resolved with guns and it was. The nature of the conflict was determined by slavery.

At the same time, a lot of people are quick to absolve the North of wrongdoing. The South's crime was one of self-injurious lack of subtlety rather than perpetuating an evil that was unknown elsewhere in the world. As it happens, if you pay your slaves and tell them that they are free, you are the good guy. That exact mechanism is still used to hold blacks down today, and it is apparently okay with most of you.

So let's look at this. The founders who overthrew an all intrusive and powerful monarchy to establish their own govt. decided that those states joining should never be able to leave that new govt if it became oppressive itself ?? Is this really the argument being made ?

No, the argument being made is that the union would stand together. The constitution and its form of government would prevent monarchy, which it has. If those in the union wished to break away, they could do it by amendment to the constitution, or rebellion. The south chose the latter.

This makes sense especailly in light of the debates that took place prior to the Constitutions ratification.

A group of men suspicious of one seat of govt having too much power cede all their power to an all powerful central govt ? Sorry just not buying it.

Read the constitution. It obviously doesn't cede all power, and it puts in place the ability of states to band together and pass legislation.

Are you just choosing to ignore the powers of the legislature in the Constitution?

he got his ass handed to him once the north decided to run $#@! through. lee benfited from weak northern military leadership, a southern man more accustomed to weaponry and horse, and a strong anti-war sentiment in the north.

Well here's a crazy fact: Sharpsburg and Gettysburg were both draws. Antietam was similar to Napoleon's performance at Leipzig: it's regarded as a defeat, but both of those battles were probably the highlight of their respective commanders' careers. The retreat from Gettysburg was similarly masterful.

outside that, he walked his Army into sure defeat in Pennsylvania and did so knowing his chances for victory were small.

I really don't understand this one. The South had 5 million people and the North had 23 million. There were also about 4 million slaves who were mostly in the South and who can't be directly added to the Southern total because they weren't exactly fired up about the war effort. When it became apparent after 1st Bull Run that the war would be a drawn out affair, the fact that the North would eventually overwhelm the South was clear to anyone with a brain. Gettysburg happened in the context of the Southern effort to get British recognition, which probably would've happened had Lee won there. That was the vital step in forcing a peace amenable to the continued existence of the CSA, and there was not likely to be (nor was there) another opportunity to accomplish that.

Playing a $#@!ty hand really well and still losing doesn't make you a bad card player.

to ask which should be celebrated - one gave his life after committing himself to non-violent action and ordered his follows to follow the same non-violent action in order his people could be treated with more equality. the other man took to guns and war and ordered his followers to do the same, then ordered his men to death while he survived unscathed all so he and his fellow elite could continue their ownership of other human beings.

I think that it's not only possible but in fact correct to celebrate and learn from the lives of both men. As I hinted before, the same reasoning that allows you dismiss R.E. Lee as a traitorous $#@! is the exact same reasoning that has halted the progress of King's famous Dream.

The Civil War would've been fought if no African had ever seen North America. The conflict over who wore the daddy pants had to be resolved with guns and it was. The nature of the conflict was determined by slavery.

Absurd. Every major inter-sectional disagreement had slavery as a root cause.

Where the question of federal supremacy didn't have slavery as a context (see Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions) there was a decided lack of sectional solidarity, and far less likelihood of war.

Slaves were a massive amount of the property owned by wealthy/well-off southerners. The total value of all slaves in 1860 was ~$4 billion. GDP was ~$4.5 billion that year, and total wealth was ~$16 billion. No other single thing could mean so much to one section. A valid comparison is the value of all outstanding mortgages against GDP (~$10 trillion in 2006, against ~13.5 trillion in GDP, and total wealth at ~$55 trillion). Suppose all the banks had all of their branches and employees in one section, and suppose there was growing-to-fever-pitch sentiment in the other section that all mortgages be forgiven. I would think an insurrection, of some kind, likely.

They were morally wrong, I agree. They weren't legally wrong at the time. And it doesn't matter WHY they were morally wrong, if they wanted to leave the union they were free to do so Constitutionally. If you can find something in the Constitution that says otherwise, (other than a three letter phrase from the preamble to the Constitution), I'm all ears.

While slavery was legal they were still wrong for advocating and institutionalizing it. Stoning a woman to death for driving isn't legally wrong in some countries so I guess it's ok as well.

Originally Posted by MaduroUTMB

The Civil War would've been fought if no African had ever seen North America. The conflict over who wore the daddy pants had to be resolved with guns and it was. The nature of the conflict was determined by slavery.

Fought over what? With no slavery (or Africans) the South has no reason to bitch about their economy of slaves or way of life being threatened. I'm sure you've heard of the term "Butterfly effect."

While slavery was legal they were still wrong for advocating and institutionalizing it. Stoning a woman to death for driving isn't legally wrong in some countries so I guess it's ok as well.

Absolutely. Visited TJs place a year ago and Monticello was a real reminder with all the slave quarters. It pervaded everything. Beautiful place tended by human chattel, beautiful gardens worked by degraded human beings. I love TJ and wish I could go back in time to meet him. But I'm not sure it would be productive due to the overwhelming desire to punch him and not stop. Intelligent men have no excuse, and as brilliant as he was, I think he really lacked character. He didn't even free his slaves on his death. Hard to square his talk of liberty and his Declaration of Independence.

At the New York ratifying convention, there was an extensive argument about the right to secede between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists proposed a compromise wherein they would vote to ratify if "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years unless the amendments proposed were taken up."

That such a compromise was suggested in and of itself indicates that it was understood that the Constitution didn't permit secession. If it had, the anti-Federalist proposal would have not only have been redundant, but it actually would have restricted the right of secession by adding the qualifiers that New York could only secede after a certain number of years and only if the Bill of Rights weren't passed.

The Federalists rejected that compromise. Hamilton read a letter at the convention from Madison wherein he stated:

"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only."

Hamilton then added his own commentary, stating ""a reservation of a right to withdraw...was inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

The anti-Federalist proposal was ultimately rejected by the ratifying convention.

While that is only one state, it is very telling. No other state ratified under the condition that they may secede.

What is further extremely telling is that the Federalists never once asserted that the Constitution permitted secession, despite the fact that such a concession would have made ratification a much easier battle to win. The Federalists made countless arguments to try to win over the anti-Federalists (separation of powers, bicameralism, the amendment process, enumerated powers, etc.), but never once did the Federalists suggest that a state could simply secede if things didn't work out, even though such an argument would have been extremely compelling.

At the New York ratifying convention, there was an extensive argument about the right to secede between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists proposed a compromise wherein they would vote to ratify if "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years unless the amendments proposed were taken up."

That such a compromise was suggested in and of itself indicates that it was understood that the Constitution didn't permit secession. If it had, the anti-Federalist proposal would have not only have been redundant, but it actually would have restricted the right of secession by adding the qualifiers that New York could only secede after a certain number of years and only if the Bill of Rights weren't passed.

The Federalists rejected that compromise. Hamilton read a letter at the convention from Madison wherein he stated:

"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only."

Hamilton then added his own commentary, stating ""a reservation of a right to withdraw...was inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

The anti-Federalist proposal was ultimately rejected by the ratifying convention.

While that is only one state, it is very telling. No other state ratified under the condition that they may secede.

What is further extremely telling is that the Federalists never once asserted that the Constitution permitted secession, despite the fact that such a concession would have made ratification a much easier battle to win. The Federalists made countless arguments to try to win over the anti-Federalists (separation of powers, bicameralism, the amendment process, enumerated powers, etc.), but never once did the Federalists suggest that a state could simply secede if things didn't work out, even though such an argument would have been extremely compelling.

I agree. The anti-federalists did not dig the Constitution at all - they thought it was a power grab and would result in the destruction of their liberties. Patrick Henry was a great example. He didn't support the Constitution (and he later turned down a government position because he didn't support the government created), but he DID work to get the Bill of Rights passed later. One of those Amendments, of course, included the Tenth Amendment a couple years after the Constitution was penned. Strategic on their part? I don't know, but I do know that many were concerned the Constitution would destroy the liberty of the people, and along with Patrick Henry they supported this Bill of Rights. And that Bill of Rights says "if it ain't talked about in the Constitution, then the power belongs to the States/People." I completely agree that Federalists wanted one giant powerful government (apparently for commerce reasons as much as defense), but NOT all did. And the result was the Bill of Rights including the Tenth, and whatever any of them might have thought or wished, in the end, the law is the law. Secession isn't covered in any stretch in the Constitution, therefore it's a power reserved to the States/People. Patrick Henry wrote:

Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American;... But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...or engage in War...

The seceding states did all of these things.

The seceding states also expliclitly rejected that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

That you think a state can act consistent with the Constitution when it requires violating all of those provisions of the Constitution is wholly illogical.

It's also interesting that you believe you find support in Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry spoke out against ratification, at least in part because the Constitution foreclosed secession.

Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government, can a majority of them do it? No, because they are connected with other men; or, in other words, consolidated with other States.

That you believe the Tenth Amendment somehow changed everything (despite the fact that it was thought superfluous by many) is further illogical. As Madison stated when he proposed the Tenth Amendment:

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

That you think Madison would find "no harm" in the Tenth Amendment if the Tenth Amendment nullifies everyone's assumption that the union is permanent is absurd.

Hell, I know the answer. We fought a war over the South's right to secede. The South lost. War trumps any interpretation of the Constitution.

I agree with Tahoe and I've never thought this debate was terribly important.
Regardless of the framers' intent, the argument was settled by the war, and the secessionists lost. It's a settled question.

I post that as a 8th generation Southron and 6th Generation Texan, by the way. My family have fought wars of secession three times, first as American Colonials against the British, Then as Texians against Mexico, then as Texans, Virginians and Tennesseans against the Union.

The Constitution explicitly states that: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation"

and that:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...or engage in War..."

It's a good argument. I don't agree with it, but it's better than the "more perfect union" unpacking that Justice Chase used to discuss why secession wasn't Constitutional. The reason I don't agree with it (and perhaps the reason Justice Chase didn't mention your argument in the SCOTUS ruling) is because, after the States seceded from the union, these laws no longer apply to them. While they remain States in the union, yes they can't go to war etc without the approval of Congress, but once they remove themselves from the voluntarily compact, these laws no longer apply.

The seceding states also expliclitly rejected that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Again, they didn't reject that. It is the Supreme Law of the Land (until they voluntarily leave the compact that they voluntarily entered) and it doesn't mention secession, or permanent union, or not leaving and so therefore via the Tenth they have the right to leave. When they do leave (Constitutionally permissible), then the Constitution no longer applies to them. It's similar to the "While you're under my roof, you'll stop surfing porn on the Shag!" a parent might tell their kid. True enough. The kid can't surf porn, can't make compacts with other kids, can't make war on other kids....but when he says, "$#@! it, I'm out" then those rules don't apply anymore. And of course the kid likely had no choice in being brought into that situation, unlike sovereign States.

That you think a state can act consistent with the Constitution when it requires violating all of those provisions of the Constitution is wholly illogical.

Not wholly. I think my logic is worth a gander.

It's also interesting that you believe you find support in Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry spoke out against ratification, at least in part because the Constitution foreclosed secession.

Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government, can a majority of them do it? No, because they are connected with other men; or, in other words, consolidated with other States. That you believe the Tenth Amendment somehow changed everything (despite the fact that it was thought superfluous by many) is further illogical. As Madison stated when he proposed the Tenth Amendment:

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

That you think Madison would find "no harm" in the Tenth Amendment if the Tenth Amendment nullifies everyone's assumption that the union is permanent is absurd.

Yes, anti-federalists like Henry thought the federalist Constitution would trump liberty (including the right to secession). So they wanted a Bill of Rights. Federalists did argue such a Bill of Rights was unnecessary (although recent history shows that not to be the case, even with a Bill of Rights). Regardless, the anti-federalists wanted the Bill of Rights to assuage concerns they had (like the right to secede). They got the Bill of Rights, and the Tenth makes it clear the right to secede or dissolve the voluntary union is a power reserved to the States/People. Otherwise it would have been explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the States. It wasn't.

What I find illogical is that anybody would think people so liberty oriented and so anti-government would just hand themselves over to an irrevocable union. That is illogical. Who would do such a thing? Certainly not early Americans. The South certainly felt it was their right to leave. Ah, but then they got met with force by the President who suspended habeas on his own...a well spoken gifted orator President who took executive powers not granted to him by the Constitution. Logic and common sense to any man means not yoking yourself permanently into a union with which you have no ability to leave! To do so defies common sense and logic and is, I'd argue, absurd. Perhaps you have examples of such voluntary unions that you or others have made that counter this? Have you entered into a union with rights over you with no recourse whatsoever? Even American citizens can renounce their citizenship, but states cannot? I think even those who enter the Catholic Priesthood can leave can't they? But you argue that liberty loving Americans who just faced down a tyrant across the seas voluntarily gave up their sovereignty despite that language not being found in the Constitution?

I agree with Tahoe and I've never thought this debate was terribly important.
Regardless of the framers' intent, the argument was settled by the war, and the secessionists lost. It's a settled question.

I post that as a 8th generation Southron and 6th Generation Texan, by the way. My family have fought wars of secession three times, first as American Colonials against the British, Then as Texians against Mexico, then as Texans, Virginians and Tennesseans against the Union.

History is written by the victors, and 2/3 ain't bad.

True enough. Might does make right in effect, and history is written by the victors. But I do think this is a terribly important issue, because when the federal government starts demanding more and more powers not granted to it - and prohibits more and more actions of the people in various States, at some point States are going to say "enough!" And when they try to leave or take a stand, the federal government will come crashing down on the People. So it's important that we all agree to the terms we all agreed to in the Constitution, so that we can live happily and seek liberty.

Or we can just say $#@! it, he with the most guns wins and then we can cheerfully accept a military dictatorship - which is what you appear to be advocating.

Absurd. Every major inter-sectional disagreement had slavery as a root cause.

Fought over what? With no slavery (or Africans) the South has no reason to bitch about their economy of slaves or way of life being threatened. I'm sure you've heard of the term "Butterfly effect."

No, slavery was just the big one. Silver vs. Gold comes to mind as another big one that could've produced a conflict of the requisite size to actually answer the question. The question over state vs. Federal power as far from answered by the constitution, and that needed to be clarified.

I agree with Tahoe and I've never thought this debate was terribly important.
Regardless of the framers' intent, the argument was settled by the war, and the secessionists lost. It's a settled question.

It was an open question and it was settled on the battlefield.

Or we can just say $#@! it, he with the most guns wins and then we can cheerfully accept a military dictatorship - which is what you appear to be advocating.

But that's what happened. I think that acknowledging that fact is the first step toward revising the constitution to limit Federal power in ways that it was not initially designed to do, given that the constitution assumed significantly more pushback from the states.

It might be illogical to think the people would hand themselves over to an irrevocable union except for the fact that the people discussed that very issue and rejected the idea of secession.

You're making assumptions about what you think they may have meant while ignoring the evidence of what they meant.

I'm sure the people discussed many different ideas...but you're making the assumption that is what they meant while ignoring the evidence that the law simply doesn't state what you think they meant it to. It's quite simply not in the law, and therefore the Tenth reserves it to the States/People. That's just the cold hard fact and the only reason we are having this discussion is because your viewpoint is backed by a government willing to use violence.

Regardless of the framers' intent, the argument was settled by the war, and the secessionists lost. It's a settled question.

Settled by war, and with a Supreme Court decision as cherry on top.

Even without those two, it is a good debate, with the fact that we went from the articles of confederation to the Constitution, without the obvious clarification about secession that some here to be arguing in that latter document.

Pretty important.

If someone claims some incredibly important thing that is at the heart of their existence, and then fails to make that part of a critical document, it tells you one thing -- that it was bargained away.

Just to illustrate an example of why I think this debate is so important and so relevant today, consider the NDAA discussion on the Shag. I was terrified of this law (and still am) while it was going through Congress. A law that allows the government to circumvent the Fifth Amendment right to "due process of law" and just arrest Americans citizens based on suspicion alone? What?

That's what Jack Hunter was concerned about.

But then reading the actual law itself, my wonderful wife informed me that this new law DID NOT change the existing law. Her legal opinion is very valuable. If I was guaranteed that when arrested for suspicion alone, that I would get charges and a trial, and my day in court with somebody like her presiding...perhaps I wouldn't be so concerned. Still others disagree with her interpretation, from both sides. Senator Rand on the side of America, and Senators Graham and McCain and Levin on the side of America's enemies. Those on the side of our enemies think this new bill strips Americans of any right to due process based on suspicion of a King and his men alone.

Even a Georgetown Law Professor thinks that too, and he asks the very important, and incredibly sad, question - when do we have to re-define what kind of government we actually have in this country?

But it doesn't matter to me what she says, or they say, or others say. IF it can be in any way understood or interpreted to take away my liberty, that is exactly how it will be used. So how is this relevant to the right to secession discussion? It's relevant because:

1) Even though it's not in the law, if it CAN REMOTELY BE ARGUED THAT IT IS- the government will use that argument to destroy liberty. Case in point, states not having the right to secede when they think the federal government has overstepped its bounds. States do have that right, the law is clear (as some might argue the NDAA is clear that Americans are not required to be held indefinitely in military custody based on suspicion alone). But that doesn't stop those who wish to destroy liberty from pushing bull$#@! "arguments" and "interpretations" to the contrary like Justice Chase did in 1869 when he supported his anti-secession ruling with the fact that the preamble to the Constitution used the phrase "more perfect union" which he then argued meant no State could secede. It's a bull$#@! argument just like a certain president's argument that the War Powers Act didn't apply to actions in Libya because actions there (blowing $#@! up on the ground) didn't equate to "hostilities." It's the same $#@!, like a pig painting on the side of a barn wall. When you want to ignore the Constitution and limit liberty in the name of power, you don't need to say "$#@! the Constitution," instead you just need to give some transparently false (but "worthy of argument") reason to explain that your action is "legal" and plenty of sheep will go along with it despite the fact that the argument is absolutely insulting.

2) This same reasoning will be used, has been used, and is being used to destroy any semblance of states' rights. States can't regulate weed because, you know, commerce clause to include allowing individuals to grow it for individual non-commerce reasons. If a State says "$#@! you" we're doing it because that power is reserved to the States, they risk violence being waged on them by the feds. If a State says, "$#@! you, we're not making our people pay for health insurance" they get the same result.

This definitely matters, because a State is your people and a CHECK on the abuse of a tyrant. If we say that the federal government can do whatever it wants regardless of the Tenth Amendment making it clear the division in power between the States and the Federal Government, then the States just don't matter. That means the People don't matter. That was not the intent of the Founders, it sure as hell wasn't the intent of the People, and it is crystal clear that it wasn't put into law in our Constitution.

But politicians don't really care about what the law actually says, do they? It's kinda like that cute little "plausible deniability" thing. They just care that an "argument" can be made, because once they "justify" their action with the use of a gun, well then the "debate" is over, right? Just as Bozo has made abundantly clear. If we want to cease to be Americans, then $#@! it, just roll over and argue against the South because you don't like those racist inbred cousin-$#@!ers /NoAntiSouthern. I don't like the South either But there is something more important than my prejudice, and that is the fact that they were legally right and if I warp the RULE OF LAW to justify my prejudice, it will come back to $#@! me later. I understand not liking Johnny Reb and his slave owning pappy and his creepy banjo playing brother with the big head on the tree branch. I really do. But I'm not going to be so stupid as to warp our laws to stick it to the South, because then I'm just screwing myself.

It's kinda like the NDAA today. Glenn Greenwald argued in a piece, not this one, that the NDAA didn't change the current state of the law. My wife came to the same conclusion. But that doesn't matter as long as there is a "seed of doubt" or a little bit of confusion, or a "case to be made" or whatever bull$#@! somebody comes up with for a clearly outrageous claim to take away our freedom or take power they're not granted. I'm again reminded of a certain president's assertion that Libya did not amount to "hostilities." This political and semantic nonsense is used by the POTUS and the Congress to "justify" absolute un-Constitutional horse$#@! that should make a third grader go, "WTF are you talking about?"

This nonsense from the two branches (corrupt and unconcerned with our Constitution) puts pressure on the third branch, the judiciary. That branch is imperfect, but is the only hope we have of rescuing our country from tyranny.

But when the executive and the legislative flex their un-constitutional muscles in the past, the judiciary has faltered. They are unfortunately concerned with what the "rest of the government" thinks. Reminds me of Sandra Day O'Connor who was so "practical" in her rulings. It also reminds me of the embarrassing ruling of Justice Chase knocking down states' rights to secession. The "debate" was settled by war - so the pressure to conform with that reality had to be immense, resulting in one really stupid opinion from the SCOTUS. Wait and see what happens when the NDAA is challenged (if it is).

Eight pages of Shag on the birthday of Robert E. Lee. The $#@! is damn sure relevant today. And we have plenty of $#@!ing traitors we should be talking about, but General Lee is not one of them. /CarpetBagger

No, slavery was just the big one. Silver vs. Gold comes to mind as another big one that could've produced a conflict of the requisite size to actually answer the question. The question over state vs. Federal power as far from answered by the constitution, and that needed to be clarified.

That there was a conflict over something doesn't mean states would've seceded over it. Could that conflict have produced rebellion? Maybe, but unlikely. But your original position is that war was inevitable. You don't address anything with unique characteristics as what slavery produced as separation between sections.

In your example, you'd have to address why many farmers and factory-workers supported McKinley against Bryan in the 1896 election (the ultimate testing ground for the Free Silver movement). Was the schism strong enough to produce an inter-sectional war, or was ferocity rather tied to economic conditions? A quick look at county election results in 1860 vs. 1896 really dispels any thought that Free Silver was an issue divisive enough to produce secession. The Pubs won zero counties in the South in 1860, but won quite a few counties there and in the Midwest, despite losing most of those states.

Of course even more instructive was the sequel campaign of 1900, in which the Free Silver pitch fell completely flat. McKinley took most of the Midwest.

Slavery was a unique issue, the divisiveness of which was not tied to economic fluctuations.